Burned Fur: Your Assessment (a web poll)
Richard de Wylfin
(Please note newsgroup followups!)
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
thetal...@mailandnews.com (Richard de Wylfin) writes:
> http://vote.pollit.com/survey/180668
Do you plan similar surveys on the Soaked Furs, etc? (You know, the guys who
put up a sign in the dealer's room saying that they're for people who think
plushies should be sex toys...)
> (Please note newsgroup followups!)
Thanks for the warning. I hate replying to groups I can't get.
--
The greatest tragedy is that the same species that achieved space flight,
a cure for polio, and the transistor, is also featured nightly on COPS.
-- Richard Chandler
Spammer Warning: Washington State Law now provides civil penalties for UCE.
Taura
> http://vote.pollit.com/survey/180668
>
> (Please note newsgroup followups!)
I would ask this question, if a group who claims to really want to `help
make
things better' why do they need so much propaganda. Is what they're
aiming for (elimination of what they deem indecent) really the top
priority
problem that it requires the organization of an entire group effort?
The answers to those questions per action on BF's part dosen't
add up, and when things don't add up it means there's another agenda
behind it.
I would vote that their effort benifits some select aspects of their
target problem but would plant and establish roots that would
grow into other, more serious problems (what do you think Nazi's
have in the backs of their heads all the time?).
It's much like Burger King sponsoring a save the Yosemite wolves
campaign. That sort of group endeavour or sporsorship dosen't
add up.
--
Sincerely, ,"-_ \|/
-Taura , O=__ --X--
..__ ,_JNMNNEO=_ /|\
OMNOUMmnne. {OMMNNNEEEEOO=_
UOOOBIOOOEOMMn. 'LONMMMMNNEEEOOO=.__..,,..
UUOOEUUOOOOOOOObe '"=OMMMMWNEEEOOOOO,"=OEEEOO=,._
OOUUUIEEIOONNOIUbe. "7OMMMMNNNNNWWEEEEOOOOOO" "'.
EEBNNMMMNWNWWEEIMMNe. __ 7EMMMNNNNNWWWEEEEEEEOO. " .
NNMMMMWWWMMMWEINMMMNn "=BBEEEEMMMMMMMMNNNWWWEEOOOOO=._ .
http://furry.ao.net/~learfox/
Taura
> Do you plan similar surveys on the Soaked Furs, etc? (You know, the guys who
> put up a sign in the dealer's room saying that they're for people who think
> plushies should be sex toys...)
There's a differance between; A. people who oppose or promote actions of that of
other individuals and B. those who oppose or promote actions that of non affect
to other
individuals.
You want to destroy, hurt, or make a mess of yer plushies, that's your stuff
you're
doing it to. What do I care?
But if you say what people author and compose in terms of graphical expression
(artwork) that's poking yer snout in someone else's business.
Unless the graphics are sent as SPAM to other individuals, BF has no grounds.
Even if it were sent as SPAM, its not wrong because it disagreed with BF's view
on
what is right or wrong, it's wrong because it was unsolicited. If anyone is too
immature
to make that distinction, they should not be in organizationship of a group
promiting
*any* endeavour.
Brian Sutton
spin-off groups fair in a survey with identical questions.
The results were interesting with a larger poll than I expected ( 54 when I
looked ).
Brian Sutton
" Because I REALLY care about your happiness..."
Visit my website @ http://members.xoom.com/HJGpage/
for deals on Furry art & comics
TriGem Olandarinse
Richard de Wylfin wrote:
> http://vote.pollit.com/survey/180668
>
> (Please note newsgroup followups!)
Face it.. theor movement is dead, give it a rest.
--
---------------------------
|\/--\/ TriGem Olandarinse, Thé £ùPhrªnítÉ \/--\/| AKA: Alan Kennedy
ICQ: 8781052
---------------------------
WWW: http://www.furnation.com/trigem
FurCode: FCW[Luphra'nite Bioroid]cms3dmrw A+ C+ D++ H+ M++ P+ R+++ T+ W
Z Sm++ RLAT/U a23 cdnw++++ d++ e+ f+ h++ iwf++ j++ p sm+
http://www.vulpine.pp.se/cgi-bin/furcode <<<-- Decode The Code
---------------------------
The images that come to mind are there and are perfect in all ways.
Making your hand do that is never hard, but making the paper accept the
image YOU want is the hard part.
The dumber people think you are, the more suprised they'll be when you
kill them.
Exeperience and talent are NO excuse for blatent and utter stupidity.
---------------------------
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
tri...@ohiohills.com> writes:
> Richard de Wylfin wrote:
>
> > http://vote.pollit.com/survey/180668
> >
> > (Please note newsgroup followups!)
>
> Face it.. theor movement is dead, give it a rest.
I agree. Richard's movement, the non-aligned furs, is dead.
You really should pay more attention.
But it was a falsely named group. It pretended to be non-aligned, when it
really was just a stalking horse for anti-BF attacks. They never went after
any other groups, if you noticed.
Timothy D Fay
>http://vote.pollit.com/survey/180668
They had their 15 minutes. Now they're just Old News.
--
-- http://www.umn.edu/~fayxx001 --
"My mental facilities are TWICE what yours are -- you pea brain!"
-Percival McLeach
++++ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal! ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
Brian Sutton
>make things better' why do they need so much propaganda.
While I don't doubt there is an "agenda" behind this don't try making it sound
like some sort of black helicopter thing kiddo.
The questions were fairly solid and not leading, if there was any leadership
connected to the organization I would say to pay attention to the results of
questions #2 and 3.
I will say that I was disapointed that there doesn't seem to be any safe guard
to prevent repeat voting and I'm also unsure if looking at the poll results
causes any changes in the numbers.
I would like to see these Non- Aligned guys run some similar polls on
themselves and the other groups, maybe on the publishers and cons too. Also
some polling data about where the polls were mentioned (which news groups
posted to).
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> I will say that I was disapointed that there doesn't seem to be any
> safe guard to prevent repeat voting and I'm also unsure if looking at
> the poll results causes any changes in the numbers.
Try a second time. It set a Cookie on you.
Timothy D Fay
>In alt.fan.furry Timothy D Fay <fayx...@amethyst.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>: They had their 15 minutes. Now they're just Old News.
>Sort of like the Burned Furs for the most part
That's who I meant, actually. :) Hard to keep track without a
scorecard.
TriGem Olandarinse
> > Face it.. theor movement is dead, give it a rest.
>
> I agree. Richard's movement, the non-aligned furs, is dead.
>
> You really should pay more attention.
>
> But it was a falsely named group. It pretended to be non-aligned, when it
> really was just a stalking horse for anti-BF attacks. They never went after
> any other groups, if you noticed.
Uh.. I ment the Burned Furs Richard.
Well, considering the BFs go after any group that don't fit into their 'higher
then though, form fitting, cutsey all right with mom and the pastor' image, I
don't see how you can complain much.
---------------------------
|\/--\/ TriGem Olandarinse, Thé ŁůPhrŞnítÉ \/--\/| AKA: Alan Kennedy ICQ:
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
tri...@ohiohills.com> writes:
> Well, considering the BFs go after any group that don't fit into
> their 'higher then though, form fitting, cutsey all right with mom and
> the pastor' image, I don't see how you can complain much.
You seem to have the Burned Furs confused with someone else. "Mom and the
pastor"? Come on. Haven't you been paying attention? Remember Ben Bruin?
Can you even IMAGINE Eric Blumrich being devoutly religious without your head
exploding?
Farlo
>TriGem Olandarinse writes:
>> Well, considering the BFs go after any group that don't fit into
>> their 'higher then though, form fitting, cutsey all right with mom and
>> the pastor' image, I don't see how you can complain much.
>
>You seem to have the Burned Furs confused with someone else. "Mom and
>the pastor"? Come on.
Well, if "mom" is "Eva Braun", and you got "Pastor Ben Bruin" ....
.... Ewwwww ....
Erg ... must remember to eat dinner BEFORE reading Usenet!
>Can you even IMAGINE Eric Blumrich being devoutly religious without your
>head exploding?
Call them the "Odd Couple". "Felix and Oscar", "Eric and Ben".
--
Farlo
Urban fey dragon
"Worship my magic space monkey or he'll napalm you."
"Yes, my e-mail address is valid. It just doesn't look valid."
TriGem Olandarinse
> You seem to have the Burned Furs confused with someone else. "Mom and the
> pastor"? Come on. Haven't you been paying attention? Remember Ben Bruin?
> Can you even IMAGINE Eric Blumrich being devoutly religious without your head
> exploding?
>
> --
> -- Richard Chandler
Sense you fail to see the humor there, lemme make it clear to you. The Burned
Furs in the past have demonstrated, or the 'core spokespeople' that is, thier
lack of tolarance and voiced their distastes and vile verbal drek on countless
occasions. For what, something as simple as porn, or a person's personall
habbits, or even making up nonses posts liek Hangdog supposedly finding a 'glory
shot' site of mine? C'mon, get a clue.
Taura
> > It's much like Burger King sponsoring a save the Yosemite wolves
> > campaign. That sort of group endeavour or sporsorship dosen't
> > add up.
>
> Pardon? That comparison is so disjoint I don't follow it...
Burger King is a fast food resteraunt, they serve hamburgers which are made
of beef. Common sense will tell you, that such a company would probably not
be
in the heart felt need to support animals (since they use their bodies as
material for
their food products).
If Burger King were to support any act to protect wolves, there are two
contradictions.
Wolves in the eyes of wolf-phobic farmers are a threat to their live stock,
the same
material that Burger King uses to generate their food product. The second
way
is that wolves themselves are animals, although probably not used as
material
in Burger King's food products, Burger King probably would not have the
interested
to protect a type of subject that is in the same catagory (living
creatures) as the
material they depend on for food products.
So if Burger King sponsorted a` save the wolves campaign', such an act
would
be contradictory to Burger King's very nature.
Have we beat this subject to death yet? ;)
Taura
> >I would ask this question, if a group who claims to really want to `help
> >make things better' why do they need so much propaganda.
>
> While I don't doubt there is an "agenda" behind this don't try making it sound
> like some sort of black helicopter thing kiddo.
That wasn't what I was trying to emphizie. I've been passing perfect scores
on social science exams and critical communication tests before you
were even knew how to spell. With all due respect, your communication
skills are not half as good as mine.
If you have a group, that at some level is tied to Nazi's. You can and should
expect
anywhere from a light shaved head fetish, to hatrid in the form of social
attacks on say Jewish furs.
No, BF probably does not have any `black helocopter' conspiracy or plot to
open `Jew Burger King' (made from 100% Jews). But they arn't doing this
to help anyone but themselves.
> The questions were fairly solid and not leading, if there was any leadership
> connected to the organization I would say to pay attention to the results of
> questions #2 and 3.
> I will say that I was disapointed that there doesn't seem to be any safe guard
> to prevent repeat voting and I'm also unsure if looking at the poll results
> causes any changes in the numbers.
I voted once and the outcome is consistant. Some think BF won't have much
of an impact, others feel they're a moderate negativity.
Which is consistant to what I just explained above.
Taura
> I agree. Richard's movement, the non-aligned furs, is dead.
>
> You really should pay more attention.
>
> But it was a falsely named group. It pretended to be non-aligned, when it
> really was just a stalking horse for anti-BF attacks. They never went after
> any other groups, if you noticed.
There are a *lot* of pretenders in the `sympath for (possible) sexual abuse'
movements. If the non-aligned furs really are blacklisting BF, then the
two groups absolutly deserve each other.
If that were the case, in my opnion I hope they negate each other ;)
Taura
> In article <38A14F3E...@ohiohills.com>, TriGem Olandarinse <
> tri...@ohiohills.com> writes:
> > Well, considering the BFs go after any group that don't fit into
> > their 'higher then though, form fitting, cutsey all right with mom and
> > the pastor' image, I don't see how you can complain much.
>
> You seem to have the Burned Furs confused with someone else. "Mom and the
> pastor"? Come on. Haven't you been paying attention? Remember Ben Bruin?
> Can you even IMAGINE Eric Blumrich being devoutly religious without your head
> exploding?
>
I did some researching on BF's material last year, what Trigem says is
consistant.
BF is a religious conservitive group who are with backed intent/modivation to
do the possible or percieved sexual abuse persicution bit.
Dave Huang
Taura <foxSWAPEM...@furry.ao.net> wrote:
>That wasn't what I was trying to emphizie. I've been passing perfect scores
>on social science exams and critical communication tests before you
>were even knew how to spell. With all due respect, your communication
>skills are not half as good as mine.
BZZT! Wrong!
Heh, it's so cool when stuff like that happens... "... you were even knew..."
Boy howdy! Thems shure good communicashuns skills! I wish i culd rite and
emphizie stuff as good as u!
And I'd venture that Brian Sutton is older than you, and learned how to
spell before you did. In any case, he's definitely more mature than you.
(FYI, your spelling skills are rather questionable... it's "hatred," not
"hatrid"; "restaurant," not "resteraunt"... et cetera ad nauseum...)
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 24 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
TriGem Olandarinse
> I did some researching on BF's material last year, what Trigem says is
> consistant. BF is a religious conservitive group who are with backed
> intent/modivation to
> do the possible or percieved sexual abuse persicution bit.
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> -Taura
Not all of them, just some of them are pissed at the fandom for being a bit
crappy. Others, like a few certain members who'm I won't say, have demonstrated in
the past that the only reasoning that they even hopped onto the BF bandwago is to
carry out a witch hunt in furry for those elements that gather there. It has been
shown in the past on NUMMEROUS occasions.
---------------------------
|\/--\/ TriGem Olandarinse, Thé £ùPhrªnítÉ \/--\/| AKA: Alan Kennedy ICQ: 8781052
Doodles
> Have we beat this subject to death yet? ;)
I don't have anything meaningful to add to all the rants, flames and
discussion, but did you know that on my newsreader the subject header comes up
as "Re: Burned Fur: Your Ass..."? =};-3
Unca Spooge, silly.
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
>In article <38A4C289...@furry.ao.net>,
>Taura <foxSWAPEM...@furry.ao.net> wrote:
>>That wasn't what I was trying to emphizie. I've been passing perfect scores
>>on social science exams and critical communication tests before you
>>were even knew how to spell. With all due respect, your communication
>>skills are not half as good as mine.
>
>BZZT! Wrong!
>
>Heh, it's so cool when stuff like that happens... "... you were even knew..."
>Boy howdy! Thems shure good communicashuns skills! I wish i culd rite and
>emphizie stuff as good as u!
>
>And I'd venture that Brian Sutton is older than you, and learned how to
>spell before you did. In any case, he's definitely more mature than you.
>(FYI, your spelling skills are rather questionable... it's "hatred," not
>"hatrid"; "restaurant," not "resteraunt"... et cetera ad nauseum...)
>--
doesn't help your argument either. And all of you are getting personal
instead of sticking to the point.
Since I'm unwisely jumping into this rather late, I did catch the Burger
Thing comment about a save the wolves kind of thing. Don't see any
contradiction in that. If anything, it could be a shrewd political move,
considering the issues about range land use and wolf versus cattlemen. Or
getting back to Taura's sophistic complaint, it could be taken as a human
carnivore hleping a wolf carnivore angle.
More likely the matter is a bit of simple PR and tax wrtie-off.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> I don't have anything meaningful to add to all the rants, flames and
> discussion, but did you know that on my newsreader the subject header comes up
> as "Re: Burned Fur: Your Ass..."? =};-3
I mentioned it on February 6, but I'll mention it again:
It's funny that the entire caption doesn't fit in that little taskbar
thing down at the bottom of my screen and it cuts off the lettering so
all I see when I have it minimized is "Burned Fur: Your Ass.." and I
must say that's pretty amusing because I am after all easily amused and
don't let anyone tell you otherwise because then I'd get this bad
reputation of taking furry fandom way too serious and would have to give
up my full-time job of linking furry fandom to underground mine fires
and abandoned incline railroads and then Rich Chandler wouldn't love me
anymore or at least less than he does now which is fine because way back
in the day I used to have at least some degree of respect for him and
these days I think he's just a total goober which means it's really okay
to snub him at furry cons because he was the one who suggested I wasn't
fit to be an ambassador to furry fandom so I've taken to just
representing my cute squeaky little self which is all I really wanted to
do in the first place and besides it's a lot more entertaining because
it means I don't have to take people like him seriously when he starts
babbling about sex with plush animals on alt.fan.furry.[1]
And that's all I have to say about that.[2][3]
--
__________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C.
http://www.xydexx.com [ICQ: 7569393]
"If you can dream it, you can do it." -Walt Disney
[1] Followups to this message have been set to
a newsgroup Rich Chandler is too lazy to get
via DejaNews or news.fysh.org. So there.
[2] This was post made from 100% recycled
material, because there's a lot of stuff
being posted about Burned Fur on AFFP,
including a really good reply from Forrest
that I read this morning. Just thought I'd
mention it, on the offhand chance people
who were actually interested in it wanted
to discuss it in the appropriate newsgroup.
[3] By the way, go buy The Sims. It has nothing
at all to do with furry fandom, but it is
incredibly addictive and once you start
playing you'll realize it's a lot more fun
than talking about Burned Fur. And wouldn't
you rather be having fun anyway?
Forrest
companies and meat concerns with the purpose of converting all the tobacco
farms and cow factories over to soybean production?
The milkshakes are already full of seaweed extract.
Dave Huang
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci <bev...@netcom.com> wrote:
>And the fact that you felt it nessisary to bring up your "credentials"
>doesn't help your argument either. And all of you are getting personal
>instead of sticking to the point.
At least in my case, I wasn't trying to stick to the point, I was
trying to get personal :) People who say they know what they're talking
about and that they're oh-so-smart when they aren't annoy me :)
Al Goldman
writes:
>€> The milkshakes are already full of seaweed extract.
>
> Eeep! No wonder I've not felt the urge to have a milkshake for a
>while ;)
They don't even call them "milk"shakes anymore. They call them "shakes" or
"frosties" or some other name that does not make any reference to dairy
products.
Just what is in them? Probably the same stuff they put in non-dairy coffee
creamers.
Urk! :-(
Al Goldman
PS. - Since "Urk!" is also my opinion of the BF's, this thread is now
dangerously close to being back on topic. Be warned!
Cloudchaser
>They don't even call them "milk"shakes anymore. They call them "shakes" or
>"frosties" or some other name that does not make any reference to dairy
>products.
>
>Just what is in them? Probably the same stuff they put in non-dairy coffee
>creamers.
Whatever the case is, people will still go intoplaces that have *one* price for
their shakes, meaning they have only one size and will still order a small,
medium or large :-\
Cloudchaser, a Red Wolf furry
RL Red Wolf Facts: http://www.aza.org/programs/ssp/ssp.cfm?ssp=62
Furry portrait: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/charcoal/410/Cloud002.htm
Fursonal homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/charcoal/410/
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> Whatever the case is, people will still go intoplaces that have *
> one* price for their shakes, meaning they have only one size and
> will still order a small, medium or large :-\
Hell, people still order large sodas at places with free refills.
Taura
> In article <38A4C289...@furry.ao.net>,
> Taura <foxSWAPEM...@furry.ao.net> wrote:
> >That wasn't what I was trying to emphizie. I've been passing perfect scores
> >on social science exams and critical communication tests before you
> >were even knew how to spell. With all due respect, your communication
> >skills are not half as good as mine.
>
> BZZT! Wrong!
>
> Heh, it's so cool when stuff like that happens... "... you were even knew..."
> Boy howdy! Thems shure good communicashuns skills! I wish i culd rite and
> emphizie stuff as good as u!
You and BF deserve each other!
> And I'd venture that Brian Sutton is older than you, and learned how to
> spell before you did. In any case, he's definitely more mature than you.
> (FYI, your spelling skills are rather questionable... it's "hatred," not
> "hatrid"; "restaurant," not "resteraunt"... et cetera ad nauseum...)
Oh a lack of comformity to the white language!
Taura
Burger King, makes meat products, depends on animals' lives for its entire
existance.
Save the Wolves campaign, to help protect wolves (animals), wolves can be or
threaten
(percieved?) meat products.
If Buger King takes side with Save the Wolves campaign, fundimentals of the two
concepts contradict each other.
sola...@don'tmesswithtexas.net
>> Whatever the case is, people will still go intoplaces that have *
>> one* price for their shakes, meaning they have only one size and
>> will still order a small, medium or large :-\
>Hell, people still order large sodas at places with free refills.
Yes, but there is a method to my madness, you see. :) The larger the
cup, the larger my "free refill" will be on my way out the door. (After
all, once I'm back at my desk at work, it's kind of hard to go get another
"free refill".)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Fool! You have just signed the universe's death warrant!"
"I did? Uh... gee, I don't know if I'm authorized to sign that..."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
solarfox@DON'TMESSWITHtexas.net (Gary Akins jr.)
http://lonestar.texas.net/~solarfox
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
Taura <foxSWAPEM...@furry.ao.net> wrote:
>One more try!
>
>Burger King, makes meat products, depends on animals' lives for its entire
>existance.
>
>Save the Wolves campaign, to help protect wolves (animals), wolves can be or
>threaten
>(percieved?) meat products.
>
>If Buger King takes side with Save the Wolves campaign, fundimentals of the two
>concepts contradict each other.
Only in a fairly sophistic sense. But on a really basic level, your
argument deserves only a screaming "So What!?"
Darrel L. Exline
>
> Wouldn't it be neat if the fast food giants formed a co-op with the tobacco
> companies and meat concerns with the purpose of converting all the tobacco
> farms and cow factories over to soybean production?
>
Maybe the tobacco companies can look for a new market by getting the cows to
smoke (I see a Gary Larcon cartoon there somewhere) and then the cows will all
die of lung cancer and people will be forced to become vegans cause all the meat
is gone...
Ok, yes, I'm being silly. :)
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Darrel L. Exline "Your friendly neighborhood Polar Bear" |
| Director, "The ConFurence Group" -+- Co-Chair, "ConFurence" |
| 619-223-9482 http://confurence.net dar...@home.com |
|!! ConFurence 11: April 6 to April 9, 2000, Irvine Hilton !!|
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
"ConFurence" is a registered service mark of The ConFurence Group.
Forrest
"Dennis Lee Bieber" <wulf...@dm.net> wrote :
>Maybe the BK management don't perceive wolves as a threat to
>their source of meat
They have Plans...
Mmmm, wolfburgers!
Akai
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 03:06:19 -0800, Taura
> <foxSWAPEM...@furry.ao.net> (Taura) left the following spoor in
> alt.fan.furry:
>
> >
> > Save the Wolves campaign, to help protect wolves (animals), wolves can be or
> > threaten
> > (percieved?) meat products.
> >
> Maybe the BK management don't perceive wolves as a threat to
> their source of meat (especially considering the complaints of ranchers
> about their cattle being exposed to disease from bison -- if the wolves
> hunt the bison, it reduces the risk to the ranchers...)
>
There was an episode of Nightline last week that addressed the ranchers' fears of
bison, in particular bison migrating from Yellowstone to Montana during the
winter.
It seems that many of the ranchers have the attitiude that any animal that does
not directly serve humanity is a nusciance and/or threat that needs to be
eliminated. Thoush they fear bison they would probably fear wolves even more.
Anyhoo, silly analogy. The 'fox guarding the henhouse' cliche illustrates the
point more effectively.
>
> --
> > ============================================================ <
> > wulf...@dm.net | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> > bie...@ix.netcom.com | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> > ============================================================ <
> > Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <
>
--
-Akai
"Seriousness is an accident of time. It consists in putting too high
a value on time. In eternity there is no time. Eternity is a mere
moment, just long enough for a joke."
-Herman Hesse
Taura
> There was an episode of Nightline last week that addressed the ranchers' fears of
> bison, in particular bison migrating from Yellowstone to Montana during the
> winter.
>
> It seems that many of the ranchers have the attitiude that any animal that does
> not directly serve humanity is a nusciance and/or threat that needs to be
> eliminated. Thoush they fear bison they would probably fear wolves even more.
>
> Anyhoo, silly analogy. The 'fox guarding the henhouse' cliche illustrates the
> point more effectively.
Yes, but how many furs would really believe the fox to be really sincere?
Judging from the response, there's quite a few but thankfully not the majority.
Now if you'll excuse me, I need to close that deal on the Brooklyn bridge *wink*.
Akai
> Akai wrote:
>
> > Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> >
> > > Maybe the BK management don't perceive wolves as a threat to
> > > their source of meat (especially considering the complaints of ranchers
> > > about their cattle being exposed to disease from bison -- if the wolves
> > > hunt the bison, it reduces the risk to the ranchers...)
> > >
> >
> > It seems that many of the ranchers have the attitiude that any animal that does
> > not directly serve humanity is a nusciance and/or threat that needs to be
> > eliminated. Thoush they fear bison they would probably fear wolves even more.
>
> Maybe. OTOH, maybe they have the attitude that their whole livelihood is bound up in
> producing food for people like you and me, and maybe we ought to be a little more
> careful and considerate before we do anything that could mess that up.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> --Hang("Where's the beef?")dog
I can understand that perspective but the fact is that the fear of cattle catching
disease from bison is greatly exaggerated, as is the fear of wolves wiping out their
herds. They seem stuck in a 19th century state of mind in spite of the knowledge
accumulated by 20th century ecology.
Taura
> what the hell does this have to do with furry
Wolves are covered by fur for most of their adult lives. ;)
Shon Howell
I said quite a while ago that the extreme edge of the BURNED FUR movement (
most of the hidden bomb lobbers) were all bark & no bite...how completly NOT
suprising that they got nothing serious done. A lot of BIG talk, but what to
show for it? A poorly designed T-shirt? A vapor zine? Spotty con attendence?
The problem remains that this fandom was in need of a wake up call, which the
BF's provided (thanks guys!). But the movement was drowned out by a handful of
it's own over vocal members & are still stinging from the damage they caused.
Pity; the manafesto's still pretty rough around the edges, but had some valid
commentary.
Shon Howell
"When confronted, the comic artist will puff his resume to 3 times it's actual
size in order to seem more imposing..."
M. Mitchell Marmel
>
> *YAWN*
> I said quite a while ago that the extreme edge of the BURNED FUR movement (
> most of the hidden bomb lobbers) were all bark & no bite...how completly NOT
> suprising that they got nothing serious done. A lot of BIG talk, but what to
> show for it? A poorly designed T-shirt? A vapor zine? Spotty con attendence?
The operative phrase is 'show'. At this point, a lot of BF's activities
are of a behind-the-scenes nature; for example, BF members and
sympathizers are providing manpower to most of the furry cons out there,
and the fact that, for example, CF is toning itself way down is a mark
of progress.
Not flashy, but encouraging.
> The problem remains that this fandom was in need of a wake up call, which the
> BF's provided (thanks guys!).
(nod-nods) The problems of the fandom didn't pop up overnight, and they
won't be cured overnight. But overall, things are in better shape then
they were, say, three years ago.
> But the movement was drowned out by a handful of
> it's own over vocal members & are still stinging from the damage they caused.
> Pity; the manafesto's still pretty rough around the edges, but had some valid
> commentary.
Yeah, the ol' manifesto is in need of a bit of tweaking, which I'm given
to understand is in the works.
Stay tuned...
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
Farlo
>At this point, a lot of BF's activities
>are of a behind-the-scenes nature; for example, BF members and
>sympathizers are providing manpower to most of the furry cons out there,
>and the fact that, for example, CF is toning itself way down is a mark
>of progress.
Are you implying that Confurence 11 will be a Burned Fur con?
>Not flashy, but encouraging.
Not totally factual either. CF10 was not run by the Burned Fur. In fact, BF
were actively mocked.
>> But the movement was drowned out by a handful of
>> it's own over vocal members & are still stinging from the damage they
>> caused.
The "movement" was drowned out by the vocalizations of its founding
members, who were seen for whom they really are by anyone who cared to
watch. They eventually resorted to hurting their own members, and self-
destructed. *shrug* It was ugly.
> Pity; the manafesto's still pretty rough around the edges, but
>> had some valid commentary.
>
>Yeah, the ol' manifesto is in need of a bit of tweaking, which I'm given
>to understand is in the works.
The "manifesto" is hate-spewn dribble by the partially literate. I would
not dignify a recap.
Farlo
TriGem Olandarinse
> Are you implying that Confurence 11 will be a Burned Fur con?
Well.. some argue that since Mr. Exline is a member that it will be, as Handog
has so
blatently spewed once, or tried to, he claimed that i wouuld be. I'm sure more
then a few
people remember that little incident.
> Not totally factual either. CF10 was not run by the Burned Fur. In fact, BF
> were actively mocked.
I wish I wold have been there, and HOPEFULLY if things work out (by some
miracle of the
gods) will try to attend CF11 so I can 'see' for myself the CF attitude so many
think sucks.
>
> The "movement" was drowned out by the vocalizations of its founding
> members, who were seen for whom they really are by anyone who cared to
> watch. They eventually resorted to hurting their own members, and self-
> destructed. *shrug* It was ugly.
Yes.. you don't see SqueeRat or Blumrich actively taking a part in all this,
now do you? Don't get
me wrong, I know both of them have lives (unlike some members it seems) but
that is NO excuse
at all for abanonding such a thing they started, unless, they knew it was a
joke and wanted to
wash their hands of this from the start.
As it goes Farlo, the BF DID have a good ideal, but the problem was that the
members were so
radically different, from views on what is right, wrong, acceptible, sexuality,
and relgion. All things
which in essence should have no TRUE bearing on what IS 'furry'. Then again,
people will do
what they want, regardless.
> The "manifesto" is hate-spewn dribble by the partially literate. I would
> not dignify a recap.
>
> Farlo
Yes.. but one person. Not the WHOLE moment.. which is rather sad actually that
SO many
people cling to such a rather i'll manared electronic roll of TP from someone
who THINKS they
are better, just because of their background. I'm not saying this to be
'racist' or anytihg like that,
but the evidance WAS available on Squee's site, and she blatently slams
everyone. Humor or
satyre aside, its still in poor taste, and someone like that should NOT be the
type of person to
'govern' nor 'initiate' a 4-step recovery program.
Majority rules, plain and simple. Talk to people one on one, and then quickly,
that becomes
majority again. See first sentance.
--
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._<Idendtifcation>
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._TriGem Olandarinse, Thé £ùPhrªnítÉ
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._AKA: Alan Kennedy, ICQ: 8781052
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._WWW: http://www.furnation.com/trigem
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)hotmail.com - text
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)ohiohills.com - binaries
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._<FurCode>
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._FCW[Luphra'nite Bioroid]cms3dmrw A+
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._C+ D++ H+ M++ P+ R+++ T+ W Z Sm
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._RLAT/U a23 cdnw++++ d++ e+ f+ h
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._iwf++ j++ p sm+ -<Decode It>-
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._http://www.vulpine.pp.se/cgi-bin/furcode
^spam trap^ - If you don't like it, tough :P
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> The operative phrase is 'show'. At this point, a lot of BF's activities
> are of a behind-the-scenes nature; for example, BF members and
> sympathizers are providing manpower to most of the furry cons out there,
> and the fact that, for example, CF is toning itself way down is a mark
> of progress.
It's nice to hear BF members have finally decided to turn their efforts
towards something constructive that will actually benefit the fandom.
Personally, I've never needed a manifesto to get me to help out behind
the scenes at furry conventions.
> Yeah, the ol' manifesto is in need of a bit of tweaking, which I'm given
> to understand is in the works.
Why not just get rid of the ol' manifesto entirely?
M. Mitchell Marmel
> It's nice to hear BF members have finally decided to turn their efforts
> towards something constructive that will actually benefit the fandom.
No 'finally' about it. Quiet behind the scene pro-fandom activities
have been part of BF since Day One. :)
> Personally, I've never needed a manifesto to get me to help out behind
> the scenes at furry conventions.
Me neither. Been helping out with fanac in one form or another (furry,
SF and railfan) since 1976, myself.
> Why not just get rid of the ol' manifesto entirely?
...Nah. Be like getting rid of the Declaration of Independence just
because of a few typos. If nothing else, the Manifesto serves as a
historical document... [1]
--
============================================================================
M. Mitchell Marmel \ Scattered, smothered, covered, chunked,
Drexel University \ whipped, beaten, chained and pierced.
Department of Materials Engineering \ *THE BEST HASHBROWNS IN THE WORLD!*
Fibrous Materials Research Center \ marm...@dunx1.ocs.drexel.edu
============================================================================
TaliVisions Homepage: http://www.pages.drexel.edu/grad/marmelmm/Talivisions/index.html
ICQ # 58305217
[1] Not in the class of the Declaration of Independence, but still of interest.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
[...]
>> Why not just get rid of the ol' manifesto entirely?
>
>...Nah. Be like getting rid of the Declaration of Independence just
>because of a few typos.
I don't think the Declaration of Independence is quite as pointlessly
offencive as the Manifesto. Nor as non logical.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> I've read that too, it's nothing more than a declaration of a textbook
> defination of a white trash witch hunt. Worded very nicly to decieve
> anyone
> egar to `help'.
White trash? I would laugh except it's sadly ignorant.
You DO know who wrote it, right? And that she is black...
Yeah, it's strong, over the top even, but it took something like that to
get people's attention. Previous calls for cleaning up behavior in
public were ignored. So now that it has gotten people's attention maybe
a better worded one can be substituted.
Amid all the shouting from the people who do give the fandom a bad name
you can not be noticed by whispering. Plenty of people have pointed out
the fandom's troubles in years past and been ignored for it. It took
Charla's shout to get attention.
Maybe if the people slapping names like "white trash" on them calmed
down their knee-jerk reaction every time the name BF was mentioned and
actually listened the ruder BF's would also tone down.
I have seen damn little of the often-vaunted "tolerance" from the people
who like to use the term.
If BF ranks are growing it's because of behavior like this.
Peter Schorn
> Taura wrote:
> >
> > I've read that too, it's nothing more than a declaration of a textbook
> > defination of a white trash witch hunt. Worded very nicly to decieve
> > anyone egar to `help'.
"Charla Trotman--White Trash!!!"
:oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD :oD
Farry
>Yeah, it's strong, over the top even, but it took something like that to
>get people's attention. Previous calls for cleaning up behavior in
>public were ignored. So now that it has gotten people's attention maybe
>a better worded one can be substituted.
>
>Amid all the shouting from the people who do give the fandom a bad name
>you can not be noticed by whispering. Plenty of people have pointed out
>the fandom's troubles in years past and been ignored for it. It took
>Charla's shout to get attention.
Actually, the discussions about the fandom's troubles in the past hadn't
been ignored entirely. The improvement in the cons had started before
BF's inception and was widely mentioned in the con reports.
You're right to say that the Manifesto got the attention of those who
were concerned enough to do something about the fandom's image.
Unfortunately, that advantage was destroyed by it's severe downside.
Firstly it's offensive and confrontational language got BF members
bogged down for about a year in arguments that alienated the majority of
the fandom. If you don't believe me, take a look at the results of the
recent poll. The arguments were mainly here in alt.fan.furry, turning
the group into a mire of flames while the supposed source of the
problems, the zoophi1es and plushophiles etc., were mostly elsewhere and
unaffected.
Secondly it misidentified the cause of the fandom's reputation. When
professional animators are asked for their opinion, they mention the
poor quality of the art and the erotica but don't mention the sub-groups
within the fandom. Kimba W. Lion's recent post about this was not the
first time that this point had been made.
Burned Fur seem to be on the right track now, after painful internal
arguments, but improving their own reputation is probably as big a task
as improving the fandom's reputation. Personally, I think the Manifesto
was a disaster and if it hadn't existed, the concerned people would have
formed a group anyway (the time was ripe) and would be further along, by
now.
--
|\ /|
| \'_| Farry
___.-' @ `--o
/// / ____,' fa...@earthling.net
/ / ///~~/ ICQ 8277359
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Yeah, it's strong, over the top even, but it took something like that to
> get people's attention. Previous calls for cleaning up behavior in
> public were ignored.
Y'know, I keep hearing this "We Tried Being Nice And It Didn't Work"
rhetoric from the Burned Fur camp. In all the years I've been reading
alt.fan.furry, I don't recall seeing any calls for cleaning up behavior
that weren't accompanied by blatant scapegoating and generalizations. I
don't remember anyone ever asking nicely. Well, on second thought,
Ezuli was nice to me a while back and got me to apologize to Burned Fur,
but all that really proves is that Being Nice Works. Flamewars don't
accomplish anything except getting fans mad at each other. That's not
the way to solve problems.
Speaking of behavior... my behavior in public hasn't changed since CF6.
Not because I'm unwilling to change it, but because there's nothing
wrong with it in the first place.
Nothing upsets people more than a well-behaved pervert. -:)
> So now that it has gotten people's attention maybe
> a better worded one can be substituted.
It got my attention, and convinced me that I don't want to be like them.
I don't think that's the attention you were hoping for. Try being nice.
Taura
> White trash? I would laugh except it's sadly ignorant.
>
> You DO know who wrote it, right? And that she is black...
It's called white trash because historically it was brought up by white
pilgrims
where were throwing trash (hence white trash) at those they believed were
witches.
There are black bigots, I can believe that. We had one black sellout
running
for the republicans remember?
If you have a member of a minory, black, hispanic... physically
challenged, etc...
that person is suppose to understand unfairness to a more intimate degree
than someone who is not. Whoever that person is that wrote that `manifesto'
white, black, whatever... should be ashamed at himself. I'm surprised a
black
woman was igornant enough to compose something so narrow minded,
she should have known better being in two minority groups.
> Maybe if the people slapping names like "white trash" on them calmed
> down their knee-jerk reaction every time the name BF was mentioned and
> actually listened the ruder BF's would also tone down.
White trash is not a name, I just used that to describe (as accuratly as I
can)
what they're behavour is like. White trash dosen't mean that only white
culture
does it, but it's the majority.
Taura
> Burned Fur seem to be on the right track now, after painful internal
> arguments, but improving their own reputation is probably as big a task
> as improving the fandom's reputation. Personally, I think the Manifesto
> was a disaster and if it hadn't existed, the concerned people would have
> formed a group anyway (the time was ripe) and would be further along, by
> now.
What makes you think their attitude and goal has changed now?
Taura
> Y'know, I keep hearing this "We Tried Being Nice And It Didn't Work"
> rhetoric from the Burned Fur camp. In all the years I've been reading
> alt.fan.furry, I don't recall seeing any calls for cleaning up behavior
> that weren't accompanied by blatant scapegoating and generalizations. I
> don't remember anyone ever asking nicely. Well, on second thought,
> Ezuli was nice to me a while back and got me to apologize to Burned Fur,
> but all that really proves is that Being Nice Works. Flamewars don't
> accomplish anything except getting fans mad at each other. That's not
> the way to solve problems.
BF is good at one thing, language and salesmanship (user car salesman
variety),
they're willing to use and say anything to push their agendas through.
The problem with all that is that their agendas aren't out there to help
anyone
other than their group as a whole. We don't need that.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> In article <38B857A7...@drexel.edu>, M. Mitchell Marmel
> <marm...@drexel.edu> wrote:
>
> Ą> > Why not just get rid of the ol' manifesto entirely?
> Ą>
> Ą> ...Nah. Be like getting rid of the Declaration of Independence
> just Ą> because of a few typos. If nothing else, the Manifesto serves
> as a Ą> historical document... [1]
>
> Heh, I'd bet a few of the gents who penned the Declaration might have
> a few words for one comparing those two docs :)
>
> The Manifesto has been noted many times to be unbeneficial. I know
> when I passed it past the noses of our legal eagles where I work
> that their responses were less than enthusiastic. Since these guys are
> not involved in the fandom and were looking at it from the outside I
> think it's safe to say most people from outside the fandom would
> have similar reactions. Needless to say if they also saw some of the
> nasty parts of the fandom (spooge) they'd also react similarly.
>
> So which is worse?
Personally, I would compare it more to the original Articles of Confederation
(You DID learn about those in school, didn't you?), and eventually a real
Constitution will be written to replace it.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Secondly it misidentified the cause of the fandom's reputation.
> When professional animators are asked for their opinion, they mention
> the poor quality of the art and the erotica but don't mention
> the sub-groups within the fandom. Kimba W. Lion's recent post about
> this was not the first time that this point had been made.
I found that post of his worthy of ignoring, since a) he didn't name the
animators and b) being who he is, "Kimba W. Lion" is an unreliable source.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
foxSWAPEM...@furry.ao.net> writes:
> There are black bigots, I can believe that. We had one black
> sellout running for the republicans remember?
Alan Keyes is a Sellout? I see, one's political positions, one's principles,
and one's thoughts must be dictated by one's ethnic background. Gee, if
that's true, then maybe it IS okay to treat all black people as if they were
exactly the same.
That was sarcasm, but it has a point. Calling Keyes a sellout because he
doesn't hold the positions "expected" of him is just as bigoted as calling
someone else white trash, and it falls in with a long series of cultural ideas
that are promoted within the black community like calling someone an Uncle Tom
or blasting someone who studies and tries to get into college for "Acting
White". All that does is keep the black community down and eating out of the
hands of their white Democratic Masters.
The Democrats: "End Poverty? We're politicians, we don't want to end poverty,
we just want to fight it."
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
> I think that BF would have to be classed amoungst those groups
> responable for giving fandom a bad name.
Excuse me, Mr. "I'm totally ignorant about Furry Fandom History", but the term
"Skunkfuckers" predates the burned Furs by oh, about a DECADE.
The Saprophyte
>
> In article <slrn8bjfe5....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
> > I think that BF would have to be classed amoungst those groups
> > responable for giving fandom a bad name.
>
> Excuse me, Mr. "I'm totally ignorant about Furry Fandom History", but the term
> "Skunkfuckers" predates the burned Furs by oh, about a DECADE.
>
The word "giving" has more than one tense.
The Saprophyte
--
thesap...@fillers.usa.net
this address contains no spam,
artificial preservatives
or added fillers.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>
> > White trash? I would laugh except it's sadly ignorant.
> >
> > You DO know who wrote it, right? And that she is black...
>
> It's called white trash because historically it was brought up by white
> pilgrims
> where were throwing trash (hence white trash) at those they believed were
> witches.
I don't know where you get these erroneous ideas but "white trash" did
NOT originate from "white people throwing trash". It means directly what
it says: white people that are the trash of their race.
If you are going to throw words around at least please understand what
they mean before using them.
> There are black bigots, I can believe that. We had one black sellout
> running
> for the republicans remember?
>
> If you have a member of a minory, black, hispanic... physically
> challenged, etc...
> that person is suppose to understand unfairness to a more intimate degree
> than someone who is not. Whoever that person is that wrote that `manifesto'
>
> white, black, whatever... should be ashamed at himself. I'm surprised a
> black
> woman was igornant enough to compose something so narrow minded,
> she should have known better being in two minority groups.
Perhaps it made her all the more aware of behavior that was unfair to a
group? The lobby bouncies didn't stop by themselves. They could not have
cared less if they offended people. In fact, they liked "freaking the
mundanes". It took an outright ban on the behavior to knock it down to
its current level. I wish it hadn't. I don't like authority but I can
see that some people will just not care who they harm or offend without
it.
> > Maybe if the people slapping names like "white trash" on them calmed
> > down their knee-jerk reaction every time the name BF was mentioned and
> > actually listened the ruder BF's would also tone down.
>
> White trash is not a name, I just used that to describe (as accuratly as I
> can)
> what they're behavour is like. White trash dosen't mean that only white
> culture
> does it, but it's the majority.
The majority of whites are trash? That's pretty hate-filled. Saying
something like that about any race is.
I am really coming to believe that a lot of people are projecting their
own hates and prejudices onto the BF. I have seen the same thing in
other fields.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
> > Yeah, it's strong, over the top even, but it took something like that to
> > public were ignored.
>
> Y'know, I keep hearing this "We Tried Being Nice And It Didn't Work"
> rhetoric from the Burned Fur camp. In all the years I've been reading
> alt.fan.furry, I don't recall seeing any calls for cleaning up behavior
> that weren't accompanied by blatant scapegoating and generalizations.
there the elevators were spooged in and most attendees were non-furry
was "scapegoating?"
> Speaking of behavior... my behavior in public hasn't changed since CF6.
> Not because I'm unwilling to change it, but because there's nothing
> wrong with it in the first place.
Which is exactly what every other person says, even those that are
bouncing down hallways in nothing but a thong and ears.
And why does every post of yours have you patting yourself on the back?
> Nothing upsets people more than a well-behaved pervert. -:)
Oxymoron. If they were well-behaved nobody would even notice them.
> > So now that it has gotten people's attention maybe
> > a better worded one can be substituted.
>
> It got my attention, and convinced me that I don't want to be like them.
>
> I don't think that's the attention you were hoping for. Try being nice.
In other words, "shut up." Life doesn't work that way, kid.
Except _I_ am not looking for attention. I don't join every thread nor
do I brag about how wonderful I am.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>Amid all the shouting from the people who do give the fandom a bad name
>you can not be noticed by whispering.
I think that BF would have to be classed amoungst those groups
responable for giving fandom a bad name.
Shon Howell
>pilgrims where were throwing trash (hence white trash) at those they
>believed were witches.
>
This some more o' yer fancy book learnin'?
Shon Howell
>
And who'd know that better than you? Hey wait, that's two things...
Farlo
>I am really coming to believe that a lot of people are projecting their
>own hates and prejudices onto the BF.
You are referring to some people within BF using BF to push their own
agendas of petty hatred and prejudice?
Farlo
Cloudchaser
>Taura wrote:
>>
>> I've read that too, it's nothing more than a declaration of a textbook
>> defination of a white trash witch hunt. Worded very nicly to decieve
>> anyone
>> egar to `help'.
>
>White trash? I would laugh except it's sadly ignorant.
>
>You DO know who wrote it, right? And that she is black...
Are you sure? In all the drawings I've seen of her, she's always drawn as
having purplr fur, not black.
Just trying to lighten things up a little :-)
Cloudchaser, a Red Wolf furry
RL Red Wolf Facts: http://www.aza.org/programs/ssp/ssp.cfm?ssp=62
Furry portrait: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/charcoal/410/Cloud002.htm
Fursonal homepage: http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/charcoal/410/
Cloudchaser
>Mathue wrote:
>
>> The Manifesto has been noted many times to be unbeneficial. I know
>> when I passed it past the noses of our legal eagles where I work that
>> their responses were less than enthusiastic. Since these guys are not
>> involved in the fandom and were looking at it from the outside I think
>> it's safe to say most people from outside the fandom would have similar
>> reactions. Needless to say if they also saw some of the nasty parts of
>> the fandom (spooge) they'd also react similarly.
>>
>
>I've read that too, it's nothing more than a declaration of a textbook
>defination of a white trash witch hunt. Worded very nicly to decieve
>anyone
>egar to `help'.
I agree. A fur I know online once said "I hope that Squeerat someday holds
herself responsible for the fanatacism of the Burned Furs"
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> > Y'know, I keep hearing this "We Tried Being Nice And It Didn't Work"
> > rhetoric from the Burned Fur camp. In all the years I've been reading
> > alt.fan.furry, I don't recall seeing any calls for cleaning up behavior
> > that weren't accompanied by blatant scapegoating and generalizations.
> So those reports about excessive behavior at CF were evil? Relating that
> there the elevators were spooged in and most attendees were non-furry
> was "scapegoating?"
people who weren't doing either is scapegoating.
> > Speaking of behavior... my behavior in public hasn't changed since CF6.
> > Not because I'm unwilling to change it, but because there's nothing
> > wrong with it in the first place.
>
> Which is exactly what every other person says, even those that are
> bouncing down hallways in nothing but a thong and ears.
way someone else is behaving?
> And why does every post of yours have you patting yourself on the back?
> > Nothing upsets people more than a well-behaved pervert. -:)
>
> Oxymoron. If they were well-behaved nobody would even notice them.
feather me.
> > It got my attention, and convinced me that I don't want to be like them.
> > I don't think that's the attention you were hoping for. Try being nice.
>
> In other words, "shut up." Life doesn't work that way, kid.
everyone else. It means being polite. How does a simple request to
treat your fellow furry fans with respect mean "shut up"?
> Except _I_ am not looking for attention. I don't join every thread nor
> do I brag about how wonderful I am.
do so. Just because you disagree with me is no reason for you to resort
to personal attacks.
Alan Kennedy
> I agree. A fur I know online once said "I hope that Squeerat someday holds
> herself responsible for the fanatacism of the Burned Furs"
>
> Cloudchaser, a Red Wolf furry
She can't. He is a professional artist with a big ass chip on her shoulder, as an
IRC confrontation the other night proved it.
World.. do yourself a favor and log into #burnedfur on IRC one of these nights and
SEE how those who are the 'self appointed' saviors of the fandom REALLY think.
--
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._Alan Kennedy, ICQ: 8781052
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._AKA:TriGem Olandarinse, Thé £ùPhrªnítÉ
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._WWW: http://www.furnation.com/trigem
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)hotmail.com - text
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._E-MAIL: trigem(at)ohiohills.com - binaries
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._And don't forget, Be a responsible human,
´¯`·.|¸¸.·´|_._Have your child spayed or neutered!
Alan Kennedy
> Sorry to disappoint, but CF is essentially a new con this year. Darell
> bought the name (of questionable value in my book), but that's about all
> that's the same. From the sounds of what he's done, I expect it will be a
> lot more organized than in the past. I don't expect it to be a 'Burned
> Fur' con or anything close. I do expect they'll likely have rules more in
> line with the other furry cons as far as keeping the adult stuff seperate
> so those not wishing to or not old enough to view them won't have to.
You know.. good for him :)
As I said.. I MAY go, regardless of 'what' the con will be about, still, it carries
the name 'confurence' expect it to attract the same crowd, same stink, just a
different year.
Cloudchaser
>World.. do yourself a favor and log into #burnedfur on IRC one of these
>nights and
>SEE how those who are the 'self appointed' saviors of the fandom REALLY
>think.
I wouldn't be surprised if it's different than what many think it's like. I've
already got the impression that most BF's are sincere and really want to do
good, it's just that a vocal few have given the movement a bad name.
Cloudchaser, a Red Wolf furry
Charles Melville
doesn't really seem to matter much whether the BF movement is palatable to everyone
or not; the fact is that it -has- had an influence on the fandom. The very fact
that we're all still discussing them is proof of that. Same goes for the changes
in attitude and appearances at furry conventions; they may not be BF-run or
BF-influenced -- not directly, at least -- but many of the sentiments offered up by
the BF movement were already being argued here on AFF for years before that, and in
spite of some arguments to the contrary, loud and serious debate in these quarters
-does- gather results. The changes at Confurence didn't occur in a vacuum;
comments and opinions voiced here and elsewhere over the past several years -were-
being noticed, even those of the BF, and they do have their impact.
The main thing about the BF was that they appear to have lost patience with the
opposition's viewpoints and apparently felt balked by attitudes they felt
detrimental to the fandom. They may have been strident and loud, but they made
more of an impact than they would have by being polite; despite admonitions to the
contrary, sometimes nothing gets accomplished by being reasonable. If nothing
else, they managed to do something the rest of the fandom hasn't: they influenced
the fandom in a proactive manner. That is, they -acted- as opposed to -reacting-.
Yes, I know they reacted to a perceived lack of values, etc, in the fandom, but
they reacted in an active manner, in creating a manifesto, building up an
organization of sorts, forging links, attempting to influence the overall fandom;
this as opposed to simply going with the flow, or simply accepting matters as they
lay. The success or quality of effort can be argued, but not the fact that they
did indeed interact in a very active fashion.
The BF manifesto may not be fully palatable, but it does serve as a beginning,
as a template for something more definitive. A Writ of Values, perhaps, in regards
to quality of works, and to individual behavior. Not a set-in-stone list of rules,
but a voluntary set of standards to try to live up to. Maybe time for the Burnt
Furs to evolve to Crispy?
-Chuck Melville-
http://www.zipcon.net/~cpam/index.htm
Shon Howell
>
> Excuse me, Mr. "I'm totally ignorant about Furry Fandom History",
> but the term "Skunkfuckers" predates the burned Furs by oh, about a
> DECADE.
>
Thank Josh Quagmire for popularising the term( though I don't think it
originated with him.)
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
> > there the elevators were spooged in and most attendees were non-furry
> > was "scapegoating?"
>
> Incorrect. Blaming excessive behavior and spooge in the elevator on
> people who weren't doing either is scapegoating.
Who said anything about blaming someone else? I made direct examples of
bad behavior. The peole that did them WERE responsible and not
"scapegoats".
> > > Speaking of behavior... my behavior in public hasn't changed since CF6.
> > > Not because I'm unwilling to change it, but because there's nothing
> > > wrong with it in the first place.
> >
> > Which is exactly what every other person says, even those that are
> > bouncing down hallways in nothing but a thong and ears.
>
> Interesting. So I should change my behavior because you don't like the
> way someone else is behaving?
Where did I say that? I said that everyone thinks they are right and you
made it revolve around you.
> > > Nothing upsets people more than a well-behaved pervert. -:)
> >
> > Oxymoron. If they were well-behaved nobody would even notice them.
>
> That's odd. I'm well-behaved and you seem more than eager to tar and
> feather me.
You made comments to a message I posted in a thread and I responded.
Funny how that works, eh? No tar.
Again, you take general remarks personally. It's not about you.
> > > It got my attention, and convinced me that I don't want to be like them.
> > > I don't think that's the attention you were hoping for. Try being nice.
> >
> > In other words, "shut up." Life doesn't work that way, kid.
>
> It means try extending a bit of the courtesy you're demanding from
> everyone else. It means being polite. How does a simple request to
> treat your fellow furry fans with respect mean "shut up"?
Because any comment that you do not agree with is immediately labeled
"not nice" and I ain't Barney, that's why. If "not nice" (things you
don't want to hear) is ruled out what is left? Silence.
> > Except _I_ am not looking for attention. I don't join every thread nor
> > do I brag about how wonderful I am.
>
> Neither do I. I'm merely expressing my opinion, just as you're free to
> do so. Just because you disagree with me is no reason for you to resort
> to personal attacks.
You brought your behavior (good or bad) into the discussion and held
yourself forth as an ideal, not I. If you don't want it commented on
don't bring it up in the future.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2000 21:00:33 GMT, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >Amid all the shouting from the people who do give the fandom a bad name
> >you can not be noticed by whispering.
>
> I think that BF would have to be classed amoungst those groups
> responable for giving fandom a bad name.
Neat trick, that, since they are unknown outside the fandom. Just how
would they do that?
FYI, furry fandom got a bad rep a long time ago, largely on the net at
first, and later at SF and specialty cons. The BF haven't been around
all that long and have done damn little that I can find. Some words on
some site (one out of tens of millions) is not going to reach the
outside world to any great degree.
Furry has a problem just in its favored material. It pushes buttons in
outsiders. A sexy-looking animal character alarms some people in and of
itself. Furries weren't in anyone's faces 12 years ago when the
"skunkfucker" crap happened, the art form just squicked some people that
thought funny animals should be limited to cartoony, sexless, kid's
fare. Sexy vixens and skunkettes on party posters was what did it then.
Don't blame the bogeyfurs for something that they don't do and never
did. They are even less willing than the average fur to have the outside
world take notice of this field right now.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
(A whole lot of neat stuff.)
Damn!
> Maybe time for the Burnt
> Furs to evolve to Crispy?
I'll beat everyone else to it:
CRISPY CRITTERS!
Hmmmm, y'know....
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> Rune wrote
>
> >Taura wrote:
> >>
> >> I've read that too, it's nothing more than a declaration of a textbook
> >> defination of a white trash witch hunt. Worded very nicly to decieve
> >> anyone
> >> egar to `help'.
> >
> >
> >You DO know who wrote it, right? And that she is black...
>
> Are you sure? In all the drawings I've seen of her, she's always drawn as
> having purplr fur, not black.
>
> Just trying to lighten things up a little :-)
(Groan) That's a bad joke worthy of me...
"A fur of color?" (She'd hate that, btw.)
Farry
wrote:
> I think folks aren't seeing the forest for all of the trees in the way. It
>doesn't really seem to matter much whether the BF movement is palatable to everyone
>or not; the fact is that it -has- had an influence on the fandom. The very fact
>that we're all still discussing them is proof of that.
Certainly, but it was a counterproductive influence. If you offend
people, they are less likely to be influenced in the way you wish.
> Same goes for the changes
>in attitude and appearances at furry conventions; they may not be BF-run or
>BF-influenced -- not directly, at least -- but many of the sentiments offered up by
>the BF movement were already being argued here on AFF for years before that, and in
>spite of some arguments to the contrary, loud and serious debate in these quarters
>-does- gather results. The changes at Confurence didn't occur in a vacuum;
>comments and opinions voiced here and elsewhere over the past several years -were-
>being noticed, even those of the BF, and they do have their impact.
I think that nearly everyone accepted that certain behavior was
unacceptable and that the con organization needed improvement to counter
it. The loud arguments were largely over how widespread it was and who
should be blamed for it rather than how to deal with it.
> The main thing about the BF was that they appear to have lost patience with the
>opposition's viewpoints and apparently felt balked by attitudes they felt
>detrimental to the fandom. They may have been strident and loud, but they made
>more of an impact than they would have by being polite; despite admonitions to the
>contrary, sometimes nothing gets accomplished by being reasonable. If nothing
>else, they managed to do something the rest of the fandom hasn't: they influenced
>the fandom in a proactive manner. That is, they -acted- as opposed to -reacting-.
Proactive - yes. Effective - no, not at first. The main influence on the
fandom was to *create* an opposition that they wasted much time arguing
with.
>Yes, I know they reacted to a perceived lack of values, etc, in the fandom, but
>they reacted in an active manner, in creating a manifesto, building up an
>organization of sorts, forging links, attempting to influence the overall fandom;
>this as opposed to simply going with the flow, or simply accepting matters as they
>lay. The success or quality of effort can be argued, but not the fact that they
>did indeed interact in a very active fashion.
Being active and creating a manifesto *are* good ideas but not when they
are completely misdirected. The motivation for the Manifesto was Squee
and others getting "burned" either by being rebuffed by employers or by
getting ridiculed. The manifesto was mostly about driving out supposed
undesirable sub-groups in the belief that that would solve these
problems. What got little mention was the poor art, and the fact that
"mundanes" consider adult-interest funny animals, erotic or not, to be
seriously weird.
> The BF manifesto may not be fully palatable, but it does serve as a beginning,
>as a template for something more definitive. A Writ of Values, perhaps, in regards
>to quality of works, and to individual behavior. Not a set-in-stone list of rules,
>but a voluntary set of standards to try to live up to. Maybe time for the Burnt
>Furs to evolve to Crispy?
Eh, well, it seems that they *have* evolved. The pointless attacks have
mostly disappeared with the most extreme BF members either moderating
themselves or dropping out. The behind the scenes work at the cons and
stepping-up production of presentable art is good stuff.
--
|\ /|
| \'_| Farry
___.-' @ `--o
/// / ____,' fa...@earthling.net
/ / ///~~/ ICQ 8277359
AAR9RAG (Mars Radio Station)
> > this was not the first time that this point had been made.
>
> I found that post of his worthy of ignoring, since a) he didn't name the
> animators and b) being who he is, "Kimba W. Lion" is an unreliable source
I wish I'd seen the original message this is referring to.
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
> > rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
> > > So those reports about excessive behavior at CF were evil? Relating that
> > > there the elevators were spooged in and most attendees were non-furry
> > > was "scapegoating?"
> >
> > Incorrect. Blaming excessive behavior and spooge in the elevator on
> > people who weren't doing either is scapegoating.
>
> Who said anything about blaming someone else? I made direct examples of
> bad behavior. The peole that did them WERE responsible and not
> "scapegoats".
Yes, the people who did it are responsible for their own actions. The
point you seem to be missing is that people in the past have blamed
groups of people who didn't do anything wrong instead of the individuals
who did.
> > > > Speaking of behavior... my behavior in public hasn't changed since CF6.
> > > > Not because I'm unwilling to change it, but because there's nothing
> > > > wrong with it in the first place.
> > >
> > > Which is exactly what every other person says, even those that are
> > > bouncing down hallways in nothing but a thong and ears.
> >
> > Interesting. So I should change my behavior because you don't like the
> > way someone else is behaving?
>
> Where did I say that? I said that everyone thinks they are right and you
> made it revolve around you.
I said there was nothing wrong with my behavior in public and you made
it revolve around everyone else. You seem to think there's something
wrong with my behavior because you don't like the way someone else is
behaving.
> > > > Nothing upsets people more than a well-behaved pervert. -:)
> > >
> > > Oxymoron. If they were well-behaved nobody would even notice them.
> >
> > That's odd. I'm well-behaved and you seem more than eager to tar and
> > feather me.
>
> You made comments to a message I posted in a thread and I responded.
> Funny how that works, eh? No tar.
>
> Again, you take general remarks personally. It's not about you.
I don't like it when folks blame groups of people who didn't do anything
wrong instead of the individuals who did. If you don't like being
tarred with anyone else's brush, you should refrain from doing it
yourself.
> > > > It got my attention, and convinced me that I don't want to be like them.
> > > > I don't think that's the attention you were hoping for. Try being nice.
> > >
> > > In other words, "shut up." Life doesn't work that way, kid.
> >
> > It means try extending a bit of the courtesy you're demanding from
> > everyone else. It means being polite. How does a simple request to
> > treat your fellow furry fans with respect mean "shut up"?
>
> Because any comment that you do not agree with is immediately labeled
> "not nice" and I ain't Barney, that's why.
Incorrect. I have no problem with alternate viewpoints. I have a
problem with people who demand courtesy from others and won't extend it
themselves.
> > > Except _I_ am not looking for attention. I don't join every thread nor
> > > do I brag about how wonderful I am.
> >
> > Neither do I. I'm merely expressing my opinion, just as you're free to
> > do so. Just because you disagree with me is no reason for you to resort
> > to personal attacks.
>
> You brought your behavior (good or bad) into the discussion and held
> yourself forth as an ideal, not I. If you don't want it commented on
> don't bring it up in the future.
I don't mind comments about my behavior if they're accurate. Yours
weren't.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
> > dfor...@zeta.org.au (David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)) writes:
> > > groups responable for giving fandom a bad name.
> >
> > but the term "Skunkfuckers" predates the burned Furs by oh, about
> > a DECADE.
>
Yeah, but it's really hard to GIVE something a reputation it ALREADY has.
And I'd like him to prove his statement that the BFs have actually done
anything to trash Furry's reputation outside of the fandom. And I really
can't accept the idea that pointing out a problem is somehow worse than
standing idly by and allowing a problem to get worse.
Richard Chandler - WA Resident
writes:
> Certainly, but it was a counterproductive influence. If you offend
> people, they are less likely to be influenced in the way you wish.
Counterproductive? I dunno, I think that depends on your definition of
progress. Seeing the evolution of Furry Cons lately, their definition of
progress seems to be coming along nicely. Even if they don't have a direct
hand in it (but in some cases they do), changes they want are coming to be, as
Chuck pointed out.
I'm not sure what your definition of progress is, but somehow I get the
feeling it would resemble the a.l.f FAQ....
> Proactive - yes. Effective - no, not at first. The main influence on
> the fandom was to *create* an opposition that they wasted much
> time arguing with.
I don't know about that. I'd say that the main influence was on the
threatened-feeling Lifestylers to create an opposition. I can't think of too
many people I'd put on the strictly fandom side who mounted nearly as much
opposition. Or any, really.
> Being active and creating a manifesto *are* good ideas but not when
> they are completely misdirected. The motivation for the Manifesto
> was Squee and others getting "burned" either by being rebuffed
> by employers or by getting ridiculed. The manifesto was mostly
> about driving out supposed undesirable sub-groups in the belief that
> that would solve these problems. What got little mention was the poor
> art, and the fact that "mundanes" consider adult-interest funny
> animals, erotic or not, to be seriously weird.
Some are weirded out by "Kitty Porn", but some can accept it in the tradition
of say, Robert Crumb's Fritz the Cat. The important thing is to get them to
look past the 90% of everything that is crud and see the gems. But to do
that, they should not look past the crud and find hordes of people jacking off
into stuffed animals and training their dogs to suck them off, and a fandom
that just blithely accepts them.
> Eh, well, it seems that they *have* evolved. The pointless attacks
> have mostly disappeared with the most extreme BF members either
> moderating themselves or dropping out. The behind the scenes work at
> the cons and stepping-up production of presentable art is good stuff.
I guess that means that in the future they will be more effective than ever.
Good for them.
Charles Melville
Farry wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:31:52 -0800, Charles Melville <cp...@zipcon.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I think folks aren't seeing the forest for all of the trees in the way. It
> >doesn't really seem to matter much whether the BF movement is palatable to everyone
> >or not; the fact is that it -has- had an influence on the fandom. The very fact
> >that we're all still discussing them is proof of that.
>
> Certainly, but it was a counterproductive influence. If you offend
> people, they are less likely to be influenced in the way you wish.
Counterproductive depends on your point of view. If the offended folks leaving are
the ones being complained about, then I would view that as a win/win situation. At any
rate, my point is that it no longer matters much; it's a done deal. The BF have had
their impact and it continues to reverberate.
>
>
> > Same goes for the changes
> >in attitude and appearances at furry conventions; they may not be BF-run or
> >BF-influenced -- not directly, at least -- but many of the sentiments offered up by
> >the BF movement were already being argued here on AFF for years before that, and in
> >spite of some arguments to the contrary, loud and serious debate in these quarters
> >-does- gather results. The changes at Confurence didn't occur in a vacuum;
> >comments and opinions voiced here and elsewhere over the past several years -were-
> >being noticed, even those of the BF, and they do have their impact.
>
> I think that nearly everyone accepted that certain behavior was
> unacceptable and that the con organization needed improvement to counter
> it. The loud arguments were largely over how widespread it was and who
> should be blamed for it rather than how to deal with it.
And as a result of the arguments and the awareness it raised, something is being
done about it, no?
>
>
> > The main thing about the BF was that they appear to have lost patience with the
> >opposition's viewpoints and apparently felt balked by attitudes they felt
> >detrimental to the fandom. They may have been strident and loud, but they made
> >more of an impact than they would have by being polite; despite admonitions to the
> >contrary, sometimes nothing gets accomplished by being reasonable. If nothing
> >else, they managed to do something the rest of the fandom hasn't: they influenced
> >the fandom in a proactive manner. That is, they -acted- as opposed to -reacting-.
>
> Proactive - yes. Effective - no, not at first. The main influence on the
> fandom was to *create* an opposition that they wasted much time arguing
> with.
Never said it was effective, just proactive. On the other hand, who says it wasn't
effective? They have a presence, things are being done... even if not directly by them,
then perhaps as a result of their having spoken up at all. Things -are- happening,
after all.
>
>
> >Yes, I know they reacted to a perceived lack of values, etc, in the fandom, but
> >they reacted in an active manner, in creating a manifesto, building up an
> >organization of sorts, forging links, attempting to influence the overall fandom;
> >this as opposed to simply going with the flow, or simply accepting matters as they
> >lay. The success or quality of effort can be argued, but not the fact that they
> >did indeed interact in a very active fashion.
>
> Being active and creating a manifesto *are* good ideas but not when they
> are completely misdirected.
I don't see where it was misdirected. Fumbled, perhaps, but not misdirected.
> The motivation for the Manifesto was Squee
> and others getting "burned" either by being rebuffed by employers or by
> getting ridiculed.
Which was something that had been forewarned here by more than a few, myself
included, for years beforehand. It apparently finally hit home for more than a few.
> The manifesto was mostly about driving out supposed
> undesirable sub-groups in the belief that that would solve these
> problems.
Doing so would certainly help to eliminate the aura of sleaziness that seems to
cling to the image of furry fandom; makes it easier to defend when you can point out
that such groups have no real affiliation with the fandom. Actually -driving- them
-out- would be impractical, but there's no reason to make such groups actually -welcome-
either.
> What got little mention was the poor art, and the fact that
> "mundanes" consider adult-interest funny animals, erotic or not, to be
> seriously weird.
More reason to -not- give them reason to find it seriously weird, then.
>
>
> > The BF manifesto may not be fully palatable, but it does serve as a beginning,
> >as a template for something more definitive. A Writ of Values, perhaps, in regards
> >to quality of works, and to individual behavior. Not a set-in-stone list of rules,
> >but a voluntary set of standards to try to live up to. Maybe time for the Burnt
> >Furs to evolve to Crispy?
>
> Eh, well, it seems that they *have* evolved. The pointless attacks have
> mostly disappeared with the most extreme BF members either moderating
> themselves or dropping out. The behind the scenes work at the cons and
> stepping-up production of presentable art is good stuff.
Why, then, are you assuming the BF's have dropped out rather than working behind the
scenes and improving their art? And if they -are- dropping out, then we really -are-
losing furries. Attitudes notwithstanding, misguided manifestos or not, they were at
least on the right track.
Dave Huang
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>FYI, furry fandom got a bad rep a long time ago, largely on the net at
>first, and later at SF and specialty cons. The BF haven't been around
No, I'm pretty sure the bad rep came from SF cons, not the net... Didn't
the term "skunkfucker" come from some SF con (Baycon?), back before the
net was popular? (Late 80s or early 90s?) I seem to remember that when
I first discovered online furry fandom, around 1990, the skunkfucker
incident had already occurred. Also, MU Press published "Skunk" before
the net had much influence, although I can't find the date... sometime
in 92 or 93?
--
Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
INet: kh...@bga.com | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
Dahan: Hani G Y+C 24 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> In article <38BAB9...@worldnet.att.mil>,
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
> >FYI, furry fandom got a bad rep a long time ago, largely on the net at
> >first, and later at SF and specialty cons. The BF haven't been around
>
> No, I'm pretty sure the bad rep came from SF cons, not the net... Didn't
> the term "skunkfucker" come from some SF con (Baycon?), back before the
> net was popular? (Late 80s or early 90s?) I seem to remember that when
> I first discovered online furry fandom, around 1990, the skunkfucker
> incident had already occurred. Also, MU Press published "Skunk" before
> the net had much influence, although I can't find the date... sometime
> in 92 or 93?
Try 1988. It was an example of how furry squicks people _without_ help
from bad behavior. It was before the net counted for squat and furry had
NO public image. The people responsible for the skunkfucker incident
were comic artists.
Furry's bad _public_ image came along with the InterNet. The MUCK's and
MUD's were the first notorious aspect and junk like Wired pointed
fingers. Did things clean up? Hell no! It attracted more weird people.
Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
> > Who said anything about blaming someone else? I made direct examples of
> > bad behavior. The peole that did them WERE responsible and not
> > "scapegoats".
>
> Yes, the people who did it are responsible for their own actions. The
> point you seem to be missing is that people in the past have blamed
> groups of people who didn't do anything wrong instead of the individuals
> who did.
I didn't miss a thing. You are the one missing points repeatedly. Not a
flame, a statement of fact.
You like to make the claim that some group was wrongly blamed. OK, it's
put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
I can make the reverse claim. BF have been accused of things they didn't
do. Remember the push down the stairs incident reported from AC99 that
evaporated when Kage demanded information like a name?
> > > > > Speaking of behavior... my behavior in public hasn't changed since CF6.
> > > > > Not because I'm unwilling to change it, but because there's nothing
> > > > > wrong with it in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Which is exactly what every other person says, even those that are
> > > > bouncing down hallways in nothing but a thong and ears.
> > >
> > > Interesting. So I should change my behavior because you don't like the
> > > way someone else is behaving?
> >
> > Where did I say that? I said that everyone thinks they are right and you
> > made it revolve around you.
>
> I said there was nothing wrong with my behavior in public and you made
> it revolve around everyone else. You seem to think there's something
> wrong with my behavior because you don't like the way someone else is
> behaving.
You have a reading comprehension problem or a complex. I pointed out
that _everyone_ thinks they behave fine. It they didn't they would all
behave the same. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that? I
have had to explain it twice.
> > You made comments to a message I posted in a thread and I responded.
> > Funny how that works, eh? No tar.
> >
> > Again, you take general remarks personally. It's not about you.
>
> I don't like it when folks blame groups of people who didn't do anything
> wrong instead of the individuals who did. If you don't like being
> tarred with anyone else's brush, you should refrain from doing it
> yourself.
And where did I do that? I didn't. YOU brought other groups into the
discussion, not I.
> > Because any comment that you do not agree with is immediately labeled
> > "not nice" and I ain't Barney, that's why.
>
> Incorrect. I have no problem with alternate viewpoints. I have a
> problem with people who demand courtesy from others and won't extend it
> themselves.
Then talk to THEM. I made no such request and I haven't had any extended
to me. Huffy and putting words in my mouth is not being polite.
> > You brought your behavior (good or bad) into the discussion and held
> > yourself forth as an ideal, not I. If you don't want it commented on
> > don't bring it up in the future.
>
> I don't mind comments about my behavior if they're accurate. Yours
> weren't.
What did I say that was inaccurate? You DID insert your behavior into
the thread and told one and all that it was an ideal to aspire to. I
told you everyone feels that way. You made it about you. I told you that
you had done that here and in the past. What was inaccurate? Is a
pattern beginning to emerge?
For the last time. The fandom is not you. Other people are not you.
Pointing out that something happened is NOT saying that someone ELSE did
it. I never blamed anyone for something they didn't do. Why did you even
bring it up? It was beside the point. The only insult thrown at any
group in the thread was Taura's "white trash" comment toward Ms. Trotman
and the burned furs. Funny how that was just fine with you but my
objection to it pissed you off enough to post.
Farlo
>Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
>everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct.
I sense a bias. =)
"Tell me about your childhood ..."
Farlo
Farlo
>You like to make the claim that some group was wrongly blamed. OK, it's
>put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
>stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
Quote (by Rune.raion TODAY):
"Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct."
/End of quote
>You have a reading comprehension problem or a complex. I pointed out
>that _everyone_ thinks they behave fine. It they didn't they would all
>behave the same. Why do you have such a hard time understanding that?
That's simply not true. Some people deliberately behave badly. Squee rat,
for instance, is perfectly capable of NOT throwing temper tantrums. It is
a concious choice. People do things that they later regret.
>> I have a
>> problem with people who demand courtesy from others and won't extend
>> it themselves.
>
>Then talk to THEM.
He is.
>> I don't mind comments about my behavior if they're accurate. Yours
>> weren't.
>
>What did I say that was inaccurate?
Refer to the DIRECT QUOTE at the top of the page.
>The only insult thrown at any
>group in the thread was Taura's "white trash" comment toward Ms. Trotman
>and the burned furs. Funny how that was just fine with you but my
>objection to it pissed you off enough to post.
Within the thread, possibly. Within the NEWSGROUP, BF have been an offense
to the discourse of civility for at least the past year.
Farlo
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
> > Yes, the people who did it are responsible for their own actions. The
> > point you seem to be missing is that people in the past have blamed
> > groups of people who didn't do anything wrong instead of the individuals
> > who did.
>
> I didn't miss a thing. You are the one missing points repeatedly. Not a
> flame, a statement of fact.
>
> put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
> stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
I can quote you a recent example:
"Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct."
---rune.raion
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen
within the fandom. I'm saying don't put the
problems up on a huge billboards so everyone,
including the media and potential new fans,
can see them."
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>
> >You like to make the claim that some group was wrongly blamed. OK, it's
> >put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
> >stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
>
> "Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
> everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct."
And that is incorrect because...?
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
> > > Yes, the people who did it are responsible for their own actions. The
> > > point you seem to be missing is that people in the past have blamed
> > > groups of people who didn't do anything wrong instead of the individuals
> > > who did.
> >
> > I didn't miss a thing. You are the one missing points repeatedly. Not a
> > flame, a statement of fact.
> >
> > put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
> > stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
>
>
> everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct."
Please note that there is an "and" in that sentence. The lifestyler
movement started to grow AND furries became much more visible, etc. I
guess in hindsight I should have made it two sentences so the "and"
would not be misconstrued. I suppose I should have foreseen that I would
need to be more verbose given past attempts to find ill in my words but
I was in a hurry to get offline and get our dying cat to the vet. Mea
culpa.
It was not meant to say that the lifestylers were automatically the ones
getting visible, just that the whole field exploded and got visible and
started attracting attention.
That better?
Please don't just imitate Farlo.
(FYI, you can find me on A.L.F. too.)
How about an example of the ones you have complained of previously?
The whole point to this thread is that people too often do not
understand that what is acceptable behavior on a MUCK or chat or within
a furry con room is not acceptable to present to the outside world where
it has no frame of reference for strangers to judge it by or where it
goes against accepted societal norms. The result is that furry and the
material it touches come to be rejected by the rest of the public. Do we
really want that?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
>> Yes, the people who did it are responsible for their own actions. The
>> point you seem to be missing is that people in the past have blamed
>> groups of people who didn't do anything wrong instead of the individuals
>> who did.
>
>I didn't miss a thing. You are the one missing points repeatedly. Not a
>flame, a statement of fact.
>
>You like to make the claim that some group was wrongly blamed. OK, it's
>put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
>stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
By Squee Rat in the Manifesto.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://www.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>
> >You like to make the claim that some group was wrongly blamed. OK, it's
> >put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
> >stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
>
> "Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
> everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct."
I think I get it now. The "and" in there is being misinterpreted.
See my reply to Karl...
Many apologies for the misunderstanding.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>
> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
> >Karl Xydexx Jorgensen wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Yes, the people who did it are responsible for their own actions. The
> >> point you seem to be missing is that people in the past have blamed
> >> groups of people who didn't do anything wrong instead of the individuals
> >> who did.
> >
> >I didn't miss a thing. You are the one missing points repeatedly. Not a
> >flame, a statement of fact.
> >
> >put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
> >stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
>
I thought we were talking about here.
And you mean that in all the time since she wrote it that it has not
been proven wrong? Odd. And just what are the names of the people she
fingered who were innocent? Really. Seriously. I'd like to be able to
toss it at her.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
>David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 02:28:08 GMT, rune....@worldnet.att.mil
>> <rune....@worldnet.att.mil> wrote:
[...]
>> >You like to make the claim that some group was wrongly blamed. OK, it's
>> >put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
>> >stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
>>
>> By Squee Rat in the Manifesto.
>
>I thought we were talking about here.
>
>And you mean that in all the time since she wrote it that it has not
>been proven wrong? Odd. And just what are the names of the people she
>fingered who were innocent?
Lets see is every vegan in the fandom responable for its poor
repuation? Every single vegan who is also a fan has been secret
undermining furryies reputaion.
Shon Howell
>Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
>everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct.
>
In stark contrast to the clean & well mannered fans of comics, Sci-Fi or Trek
fandoms...
Farlo
I think people will understand if I just killfile him.
rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>Farlo wrote:
>>
>> rune....@worldnet.att.mil wrote:
>>
>> >You like to make the claim that some group was wrongly blamed. OK, it's
>> >put up or shut up time. Who and when. Document it. Show that it was
>> >stuck on them and there was no clearing of their names afterward.
>>
>> Quote (by Rune.raion TODAY):
>> "Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
>> everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct."
Xydexx Squeakypony
> > "Then the lifestyler movement got rolling and furries were visible
> > everywhere, often without a clue about proper public conduct."
> > ---rune.raion
>
> Please note that there is an "and" in that sentence. The lifestyler
> movement started to grow AND furries became much more visible, etc. I
> guess in hindsight I should have made it two sentences so the "and"
> would not be misconstrued.
Great, but what does the lifestyler movement have to do with people not
having a clue about proper public conduct?
> Please don't just imitate Farlo.
I read your message before I read his. Seems I wasn't the only one who
saw a problem with your statement.
> (FYI, you can find me on A.L.F. too.)
I can find Rich Chandler on ALF too. What's your point?
> How about an example of the ones you have complained of previously?
How about Scott Malcomson's false accusation that lifestylers have
railed in the strongest terms against barring public bondage displays
from convention floors?
Just because one member of a group does something doesn't mean everyone
else in that group deserves to be blamed for it. Burned Furs don't like
it when folks label them as a group just because one of their members
stood up and cheered when he heard adult artwork got banned at CF10, or
when one of their members threatened to put someone's head through a
wall at a furry con. If they're so opposed to such generalizations,
then they shouldn't do it themselves, should they?
On the other hand, if they were so opposed to generalizations they would
have gotten rid of the Manifesto by now. -;)
> The whole point to this thread is that people too often do not
> understand that what is acceptable behavior on a MUCK or chat or within
> a furry con room is not acceptable to present to the outside world
What did you think of Charla Trotman distributing 'try suicide' flyers?
Is that acceptable behavior to present to the outside world at a furry
con?
--
__________________________________________________
Karl Xydexx Jorgensen / Xydexx Squeakypony, K.S.C.
http://www.xydexx.com [ICQ: 7569393]
"I'm talking about extending some courtesy and
consideration to people who _already_ show
restraint." --Xydexx, 3/25/98
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Forrest
"Dave Huang" <kh...@bga.com> wrote :
>No, I'm pretty sure the bad rep came from SF cons, not the net...
The net amplified what there was and added whole new dimensions beyond it.
Icky stuff in art shows and in the Cabaret is unlikely to be seen by the
general public. The net brings all the worst excesses of "furry" (in
quotation marks, very deliberately) right into their houses.
Farry
wrote:
> Counterproductive depends on your point of view. If the offended folks leaving are
>the ones being complained about, then I would view that as a win/win situation. At any
>rate, my point is that it no longer matters much; it's a done deal. The BF have had
>their impact and it continues to reverberate.
It concerned me that it was _this_ group, a.f.f, getting filled with
flames to the point of driving people away. The supposed culprits, as
defined in the Manifesto, were mostly in a.l.f which was almost
untouched. But as you say, it's a done deal. Onward!
> Never said it was effective, just proactive. On the other hand, who says it wasn't
>effective? They have a presence, things are being done... even if not directly by them,
>then perhaps as a result of their having spoken up at all. Things -are- happening,
>after all.
> I don't see where it was misdirected. Fumbled, perhaps, but not misdirected.
If a manifesto is fumbled seriously enough to be counterproductive, then
it's misdirected. It _advocated_ conflict as a solution. Luckily, there
were cool head in BF that knew better but it took them some time to
prevail. Productive things are being done, however, and were already
being done when BF was formed; yes, I agree with that.
>> The manifesto was mostly about driving out supposed
>> undesirable sub-groups in the belief that that would solve these
>> problems.
>
> Doing so would certainly help to eliminate the aura of sleaziness that seems to
>cling to the image of furry fandom; makes it easier to defend when you can point out
>that such groups have no real affiliation with the fandom. Actually -driving- them
>-out- would be impractical, but there's no reason to make such groups actually -welcome-
>either.
Not welcome just for belonging to such groups, no. Fair enough.
Emphasizing that the cons are about art (be it drawings, costumes,
whatever) seems to be the favored way forward.
>> The motivation for the Manifesto was Squee
>> and others getting "burned" either by being rebuffed by employers or by
>> getting ridiculed.
>
> Which was something that had been forewarned here by more than a few, myself
> included, for years beforehand. It apparently finally hit home for more than a few.
>
>> What got little mention was the poor art, and the fact that
>> "mundanes" consider adult-interest funny animals, erotic or not, to be
>> seriously weird.
>
> More reason to -not- give them reason to find it seriously weird, then.
By the way, I use the term "mundanes" to refer to unimaginative,
reactionary people who don't even try to understand unusual interests or
viewpoints. There's enough of them about to be the key problem if you're
looking for employment or don't like being mocked. This is irritating
and isn't going to change but can be worked around. That means simple
precautions like no "furry" stuff in portfolios.
> Why, then, are you assuming the BF's have dropped out rather than working behind the
>scenes and improving their art? And if they -are- dropping out, then we really -are-
>losing furries. Attitudes notwithstanding, misguided manifestos or not, they were at
>least on the right track.
Dropped out of BF, I meant. Initially some moderates - and then later
the most extreme left or were kicked out. I think BF are mostly on the
right track _now_.